The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Henry Irving said:

Cafc43v3r said:

I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it. 

The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane. 

How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site?  A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.

All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.

But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable.   Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.

Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.

Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.

The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.

Cafc43v3r said:

Henry Irving said:

Cafc43v3r said:

I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it. 

The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane. 

How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site?  A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.

All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.

But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable.   Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.

Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.

Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.

The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.

Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future.  How long would it take to not be be true? 

Cafc43v3r said:

Henry Irving said:

Cafc43v3r said:

I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it. 

The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane. 

How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site?  A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.

All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.

But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable.   Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.

Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.

Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.

The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.

Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future.  How long would it take to not be be true? 

But what if we moved to the Peninsula (sorry!) - presumably The Valley would then be ripe for development and likely to get planning permission for residential/commercial/social or a combination of all three.

Ground share with Ebbsfleet (or worse!)? I wouldn't put it past him. 

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

PeterGage said:

Taxi_Lad said:

PeterGage said:

Gillis said:

PeterGage said:

As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.

An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.

I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.

I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎

For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”

I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.

You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.

Have a good day.

Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.

And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money. 

But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.

Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?

That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?

That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?

And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?

It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over. 

It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.

How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.

It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.

Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.

PragueAddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

PeterGage said:

Taxi_Lad said:

PeterGage said:

Gillis said:

PeterGage said:

As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.

An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.

I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.

I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎

For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”

I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.

You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.

Have a good day.

Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.

And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money. 

But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.

Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?

That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?

That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?

And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?

It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over. 

It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.

How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.

It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.

Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.

If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner. 

bobmunro said:

Cafc43v3r said:

bobmunro said:

Airman Brown said:

bobmunro said:

Henry Irving said:

VOTV mentions an independent valuation of the land and gives figures for that.

The other assets ie player contracts, league membership and location (is being in London more desirable than Bolton or Wigan for example) are far more difficult to value.

I haven't seen the VOTV valuation but it should be the value as current use only - i.e. without planning permission for any other use.

In terms of ongoing operations, the club is losing £10m a year so it could be argued that the value of the players' contracts, league membership and 'goodwill' (in very short supply) is offset by the operational losses - unless potential growth (promotion to PL) is taken into account.

So club value zero - asset value as a stadium and training ground maybe £20m. A lot more if both sites, especially SL, could be developed, but the chances of that are remote.

Without going into all the ins and outs of it, the valuation of the land given Is £20m for The Valley and £3m for Sparrows Lane, reflecting their planning status.

Then £23m is all the club is worth.

Would you even say its worth that if it costs 50% of the value to operate every year? 

There is an opportunity value in potential future earnings based on the fact that the club is a going concern with an EFL licence and a stadium to play in. My view is that this potential just about mitigates the current operating losses.  

Tesla haven't made a profit in 15 years yet their market value is $49bn!

Stu_of_Kunming said:

PragueAddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

PeterGage said:

Taxi_Lad said:

PeterGage said:

Gillis said:

PeterGage said:

As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.

An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.

I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.

I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎

For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”

I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.

You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.

Have a good day.

Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.

And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money. 

But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.

Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?

That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?

That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?

And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?

It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over. 

It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.

How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.

It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.

Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.

If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner. 

In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?

Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?

Henry Irving said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

PragueAddick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

PeterGage said:

Taxi_Lad said:

PeterGage said:

Gillis said:

PeterGage said:

As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.

An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.

I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.

I guess you are one of those that do give their £25 plus to Roly at 1500hrs and then moan later about the guy - unbelievable 😎

For me what is unbelievable is that you claim to be a Charlton fan who sees boycotting as taking some sort of moral high ground.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”

I am not claiming to hold any moral high ground, just simply stating a fact that I cant understand how ppl can put money into Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and bitch about him for the rest of the week - oxymoron.

You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.

Have a good day.

Im not going to criticise you @PeterGage nor question your Charlton credentials as I know what they are and I have far too much respect for you and others.

And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money. 

But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.

Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?

That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?

That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?

And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?

It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over. 

It won’t even be a consideration. Even capacity crowds would not eliminate the current operating loss and RD isn’t going to put in a penny more than he needs to keep the club going for a sale. He would just pocket the extra money and laugh at at anyone who had believed otherwise.

How is he pocketing anything? The club runs at a massive loss.

It will determine, along with the eventual sale price and any intervening player sales, how much he ultimately loses. So, yes, he will pocket the difference.

Ah, I see what you mean, although he's deffinately going to lose a small fortune so I'm not sure we can call it pocketing.

If you believe, as I do, that his goal is to exit football as a whole with a profit, and boast about his business acumen as a result, it is clear that he wants to pocket the money from transfers at this time, and leave the new owners to inherit a squad bereft of talent. That is exactly how he exited Standard. That is why Airman quite rightly points to the close season and the player contract meltdown if we don't have a new owner. 

In order to sell players they need to have actual contracts though, surely?

Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?

Hence why Steve Gallen said in September that Roland wanted the "assets" signed up on longer contracts.

charltonkeston said:

guinnessaddick said:

dajavouslagan said:

Well if 65 million is what his after then we are screwed. No one will pay that even if we do get promoted!  Feeling despondent! 

If we get promoted, Roland will want nearer £90M.

I get the feeling that if the owner received a bid of £90m he would be convinced that there is someone out there who would match his imagination with a bid of £120m.

CatAddick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Henry Irving said:

Cafc43v3r said:

I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it. 

The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane. 

How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site?  A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.

All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.

But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable.   Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.

Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.

Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.

The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.

Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future.  How long would it take to not be be true? 

Would be my concern too.  If he's in it for the long game, how long before the ground deteriorates to the extent that redevelopment is seen as a better option?  Even more if there were to be a couple of 'mysterious' fires that would speed things along (didn't something similar happen to an adjoining property when WHL was being redeveloped?) 

This happened at Tottenham a few years back with a dispute of neighbouring business
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30195756

killerandflash said:

sm said:

We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.

How many of the foreign investors into football do it because they love the clubs?

Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.

fadgadget said:

CatAddick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Henry Irving said:

Cafc43v3r said:

I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it. 

The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane. 

How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site?  A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.

All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.

But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable.   Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.

Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.

Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.

The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.

Everything except the social housing element is only true while there is a football club there, or a realistic chance of a football club being there in the very near future.  How long would it take to not be be true? 

Would be my concern too.  If he's in it for the long game, how long before the ground deteriorates to the extent that redevelopment is seen as a better option?  Even more if there were to be a couple of 'mysterious' fires that would speed things along (didn't something similar happen to an adjoining property when WHL was being redeveloped?) 

This happened at Tottenham a few years back with a dispute of neighbouring business
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30195756